masseffectfandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:Timeline
Dates on the timeline should be either in Before Common Era (BCE) or Common Era (CE), rather than BC or AD, please. -- Tullis 08:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC) :Now we've got someone who, on a daily basis, changes it to BC/AD. This repeated vandalism is beginning to become problematic. Should the article be locked down or should we just outwait the vandal? ::I'm not prepared to waste my time, or make others waste theirs, by constantly changing this article back and forth. The individual is being blocked forthwith and I've replaced the note about dates being in BCE/CE. If there are any more problems with this BC/AD correction, I'll lock the article. --Tullis 07:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC) :::This page is now locked to unregistered users. Next stage is making it sysop only and I really don't want to do that. Hopefully this will stop the vandalism. --Tullis 15:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC) I am the so called "vandal" - I would like to apologize if I have caused you any inconvenience(I never saw this discussion page until today after you locked it) but I had my reasons for changing it to AD and BC. I see BCE and CE and I see people yet again trying to eliminate Christ from something; this time it is how we record our years. When BCE is used instead of BC(before Christ) and CE instead of AD(anno domini-which is translated to- in the year of our Lord) it just upsets me. I was only trying to give our Lord and Savior the recognition he deserves. I would greatly appreciate it if you changed it to BC and AD but it is out of my hands and the only thing I can do is pray for you. I hope you have a nice day Tullis. Goodbye :Thanks for taking the time to leave a message and explain. I understand your position and I'm sorry if you're upset, but we have to cater to everybody, including Christians, those of other faiths and those without religion. If it's any consolation, according to my research the Common Era distinction was actually developed by a Christian monk in the first place. --Tullis 16:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC) :: This explaination is rather silly, since our calendar is already mired in various references to not merely Christian but pagan, astrological and Jewish beliefs. If you wanted to remove all reference to religion from calendar dates, you'd have to rename the days and get rid of the 7-day week among other things. Like it or not, such things have infiltrated the western culture and thus the language. Hand-wringing over the use of 'Christ' is the only reason I can see for this sort of change. -- Rhine1 15:00, February 14, 2010 (UTC) :::Do what now? I'll remind you that we do have a policy about not insulting other users (and calling their comments silly does seem a bit insulting). Regardless, if your aim is to re-open this debate and get the dating system on this wiki changed back from BCE/CE to BC/AD, you needn't bother. BioWare has made it clear that BCE/CE is used in the Mass Effect universe, and BioWare is the ultimate arbiter of these things around here. What they say, goes. SpartHawg948 23:05, February 14, 2010 (UTC) Discrepancies I noticed a problem with the timeline, specifically the founding of the colony Demeter before the discovery of the Charon Relay, I have since corrected that and fine-tuned a few other dates. -- Ninsegtari 15:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC) :The date for the Charon Relay's discovery is given in-game and in Mass Effect: Revelation as being 2149, but in the Galactic Codex: Essentials Edition 2183 as being 2156. I'd have thought 2156 was the correct date - it seems very impressive that it only took a single year to decipher the Prothean data cache and travel across the solar system to Pluto. But that Galactic Codex timeline doesn't mention Demeter at all, and says Eden Prime was the first true extra-solar colony (which the game seems to bear out). So there seems to be some discrepancy between the in-game Codex and other sources. --Tullis 07:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC) Daturfman101 11:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Well, the in-game codex says the date is 2149, so I think thats the more trustworthy source. ::As I've mentioned in other places (I know this comment is over a month old), the BW writers had little time to proof the print codex, which was written by MS based on our docs. Unfortunately, they were just given a pile of docs, not all of which were "living" and kept up to date. When the print codex contradicts information presented in-game, please give precedence to what's in-game. ::Demeter was the first extra-solar colony. Eden Prime was the first colony on the far side of the mass relay. Humanity had FTL mass effect drive before the Charon Relay was activated. In fact, they used said FTL drive to get to Charon quickly once they knew what it was. ::A few things: ::#Revelations explicitly stated that some insane number of things happened in the first year to the point that many were suspicious that the cache had been discovered earlier, only made public when the major governments had come close to an agreement of what to do going forward. I can't remember whether Charon was in that list, but I believe that would be about right. At least, I'm pretty sure it was Revelations - it might've been Ascension. It was one of the novels, either way. ::#Revelations explicitly stated that humanity was restricted to its own solar system until Charon. On a similar note: Pluto is up to 50AU from the Sun. The nearest star is 268,000 AUs. Even if our FTL drives were going equivalent AU's to highway speeds are in KM, half an hour to Pluto (or 100AU/hr) would mean 2680 hrs to the nearest star which is 112 days. Imagine how far it must be to get to Eden Prime? ::#Humanity went from "stuck in our own solar system" to "potential Council Member" in 31 years prior to the Reaper invasion - and I note "potential Council Member" because the very fact that humanity was already being talked about for joining the Council indicates how far the Alliance had gotten. When that sort of scale is considered, 1 year to take the ruins and somehow use it to active Charon (the instructions were apparently already there) isn't outside the realm of plausibility. Heck, if the information is near the surface, all you need is the time to decipher the language and then you can find this knowledge quickly. ::--forgottenlord 17:15, January 21, 2010 (UTC) ::The Skyllian Blitz (Elysium) was in 2176. --Stormwaltz 20:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC) Also, there seems to be a discrepancy with the Elysium Blitz date. The Elysium page says 2178, and this says 2176. Anyone certain of which of the two it is? 03:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC) :::Just for reference, I've already corrected the Elysium dates (that one wasn't down to misinterpretation of docs, just your fearless admin doing another typo. : ( ) --Tullis 20:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC) Hi, just wanted to point out that Leviathan of Dis was discovered and went missing in '63, not '73. It's own page says so. Typo? Anyhoo, only noticed because of the possiblity of the Leviathan being Sovereign. SjadoJai 19:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC) :Whoops! Fixed. But if you see stuff like that, feel free to change it. : ) :As for it being Sovereign, the connection's been suggested before, but we know from Mass Effect: Revelation that Sovereign was discovered while orbiting a planet near the Perseus Veil. And yes, I suppose it's possible that the batarian crew was indoctrinated and put it there, but the Leviathan is specifically described as being a corpse. --Tullis 19:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC) ::Actually, I believe it is described as an apparent corpse, as in the survey team to video of it, but wasn't able to actually study it before it was taken by the batarians. Given Sovereign's crustacean-like appearance, being mistaken for a skeletal corpse is understandable. Anyhoo, this should probably be taken up on that page instead of here. Thanks. SjadoJai 20:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC) :::Just wanted to throw in my two cents- Sovereign is described as being larger than any known ship in any known fleet. Therefor it strikes me as extremely unlikely that a Reaper (corpse or otherwise) could have been secreted out of the system by a batarian Dreadnought, as the Leviathan was. SpartHawg948 02:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Okay, enough is enough... There's at least six topics in this Wiki that mention "Saren's Brother", PLEASE cite your sources and references as to where that came from because there's no mention in the game of Saren ever having a brother and neither is there any mention of him having a brother in the Revelations book. This needs to be edited as soon as possible. --Digital Holocaust 11:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC) :Mass Effect Revelation, pg. 275 (Ch. 19, paragraph 2) - ' ' "Personal information on Spectres is sealed," (Anita Goyle) told him, "but our intel dug up something interesting. Seems he lost his brother during the First Contact War." ' ' --Tullis 11:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC) Apologies, I was under the impression everyone was using page 129 for the 'brother' reference. :P ---- :It also may be really useful to add an actual citation link to the articles where the references to his brother are made. Saves a lot of confusion in the future if people overlook it in the book. --Digital Holocaust 11:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC) ::Fair enough, the editing blitz just kind of got me by surprise. I like your conscientiousness, though. :) . Hrm. I added a link to Saren's page, but you're right. Maybe there should be something on Saren's Talk page about his brother, maybe with this quote on there, and links to that on the aforementioned pages so people know it's canon. --Tullis 11:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC) :::I'm not sure how to add citation links yet, but when I find out, I can do a few around the site if you like. Just lemme get the hang of this thing first. --Digital Holocaust 11:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC) Organising Given the ammount of data avaliable, and how it's only set to increase dramatically, do you think it would be wise to create articles for years rather than bunching them up all on the same page? There's pros and cons to such an approach, but given the ammount of data present, segmentation is perhaps preferable to clutter.--Hawki 23:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC) :I'll look into a more efficient and non-clutter way to do it. In the meantime there are a couple of things on the timeline that need attention; I think it would be wise to start the timeline with the disappearance of the Protheans rather than the preceding dates, however relevant they are. Also, ME: Ascension is set in late 2183, not 2184. The only 2184 date we have is the projected completion of the Asteroid X57-to-orbital-facility project. --Tullis 23:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC) A template I've found useful is the one at Halopedia, found here, which, as an admin at the StarCraft wiki, I found useful and applied it here. Mass Effect doesn't have many month dates, but with over 50 year entries, it seems to be enough to warrant a similar template. Concerning the protehans...don't worry, I'm not going to embark on an edit war, respecting the will of the admins. However, does the timing of their extinction really have the same impact it once did? We, as users, have the benefit of omnipitance, knowing things that even characters in the game don't. Unlike the majority of the galaxy, we know that the protehans were meerly the latest in a line of poor sods to be overcome by the Reapers in an eternal cycle. From what we know, the protheans aren't the beginning of the current galactic era, but meerly a race amongst many that preceeded it. To us, their importance is somewhat marginalized. As for Ascension, I'm still waiting for my copy to arrive, so my knowledge of its info is limited. However, it's been stated to occur "a few months" after Mass Effect. The game has to at least start in the latter half of 2183, as Ashley sent the email to her sister in late June, which would be before the geth attacked Eden Prime. I'd be willing to guess that the events of ME1 took place over a few months. Add another few months, and that seemingly places Ascension in early 2184. Of course, if Ascension is specifically stated to take place in '83 or something to that effect, then that's something else entirely.--Hawki 00:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC) :: : ) My job as an admin is to organise and manage, not lay down the law and demand people follow it. The reason I'd want to start with the Prothean extinction is that almost all events in the Mass Effect universe flow from that point. It's the single major event that kicks everything off. Regardless, thanks for all your hard work on the Timeline, Hawki. --Tullis 00:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC) No prob :) Have to get back to uni work now, but I can see your point about the protehans. Maybe a "Ancient History" or "Pre-history" entry could cover the earlier, obscure events. It keeps the info, but doesn't marginalize the prothean extinction. Of course, if we get a date as to the very first Reaper invasion (or however they came about), we may want to start from there.--Hawki 00:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC) Sheps Birthday It might be April 11th, it might be the 4th of November. It really depends on which system you use, but it's far more likely to be November. Either way, the best solution is to just change it from 'April 11th' to '4.11.2154' as in the trailer for ME2 --DarthWindu 15:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC) :After the previous issue on Shepard's page, I agree. (Meant to do that yesterday and forgot. :) ) --Tullis 15:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Ash's age when she enlists This timeline puts Ashley at about the age of 16 when she finishes highschool and enlists? :Yes, and? By current standards, a 17 year old can enlist in the United States Military with parental consent, and one can be considered part of the military if you sign up for the delayed enlistment program, which you can do at 16. It is not unreasonable to assume that this standard has continued in the SA (as it's military was originally formed by the existing Earth militaries).SpartHawg948 03:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Samara's birth So we know Samara is at least 600 years old by 2185, the time of Mass Effect 2. Even assuming that it's 600 years flat, that means she was born in 1585 CE, or the 1500's roughly. So how would Samara's birth be added in here? Would it be okay to just say something like "1500 CE (approximate) - Samara is born". Since squad mates from the first game are in, I'm assuming those from this game need to be added into the timeline too if appropriate. 00:52, December 5, 2009 (UTC) :Get an exact year, and then it can be added. We're not gonna assume it's 600 yrs old flat b/c assuming is speculation, and speculation is a no-no. Once we get exact years in which the ME2 squad members were born, then they can be added to the timeline. SpartHawg948 01:48, December 5, 2009 (UTC) ::Hence me deleting it after someone else apparently put it in anyway. --Tullis 13:55, January 16, 2010 (UTC) New dates As I played the first game, I noticed dates mentioned in the game which are not included in the timeline. I would like to add these dates to the timeline. I would like to know what is permissible and what is not. Thanks.Throwback 04:08, December 25, 2009 (UTC) Date Extrapolation Speculation So there have been a lot of changes over the past little while made to the timeline, and a couple of points should probably be brought up about this... 1) Not EVERYTHING is noteworthy enough to be on the timeline (such as, for example, Officer Lang being assigned to the Citadel). Major events only please. 2) We generally prefer dates that are "set in stone" over dates that are extrapolated by individual users: IE Dates mentioned in the Codex or the timeline in the print version of the Galactic Codex: Essentials Edition 2183. It's also a good idea not to take rough figures uttered by individuals as dialogue as solid numbers to base the article off of, and it is also important to remember that assumptions are not fact. For example, the geth were created 300 years before the game. They did not rebel then. It was some time later, and no, we don't know that it was very shortly thereafter. And they were last sighted beyond the Perseus Veil about 200 years ago, this in no way indicates that this was the end of their war with the quarians. So please people, remember this: We keep the figures rough because the exact years have not been stated by BioWare. If you think you know better than BioWare, by all means, post it on your own page. SpartHawg948 18:01, December 25, 2009 (UTC) :garbled wordsThrowback 09:55, December 27, 2009 (UTC) ::Throwback, please watch your attitude toward other users. Discussing changes is fine; being patronising while doing so (referring to "my dear chap") is not. --Tullis 12:59, December 27, 2009 (UTC) :::But again, you are arbitrarily imposing start and stop years on events when no such dates are known! You are depicting the Geth War as starting at a certain time because the Codex states that the geth were created (not rebelled, CREATED) 300 years prior, and depicting the was as ending on a date reached through the use of dialogue from a shell-shocked marine who had just watched her entire unit killed and threw a rough estimate out, and that wasn't even an estimate of when the war ended, just the last time anyone saw the geth! As for the quote about the geth, that one assumes that the only system the quarians had to be driven from is their own home system, and that they were driven from it soon after the initial rebellion. Neither of these assumptions is backed up by fact. This is not improving! This is inventing out of whole cloth and inserting into an article for reasons unknown. If a date isn't stated, any attempts to extrapolate it through your own means are speculative, which will not fly. Want the dates to show up anyways? Put them on your userpage. You can also use it to tell everyone what a jerk I am and tell them about how I (according to you, anyways) feel that I have "authorial control" over this page. Meanwhile, I'll be here keeping the speculation out! :) SpartHawg948 20:50, December 27, 2009 (UTC) Throwing in my response to an initial point of this thread (the not everything should be in the timeline part): small stuff like Lang becoming a C-Sec officer and Ashley getting an email from her sister on June 17 of 2183 don't fit, I agree. Just because we know the exact date of something doesn't make it automatically notable. If Lang had never joined C-Sec, and Ashley had never gotten that email, it wouldn't change much. Stuff like that doesn't go in the history books, to be blunt. -- Commdor (Talk) 03:44, January 7, 2010 (UTC) :But... but it was an email from her sister gossiping about boys! Of course it's historically significant! : ) :Fair point there; I like having some stuff from the planets in there, but noting absolutely everything that has a date may get out of hand. --Tullis 11:36, January 7, 2010 (UTC) ::garbled words Throwback 03:17, January 16, 2010 (UTC) :::So you know for a fact that the only system the quarians inhabited was their own, and that therefor all the Geth War consisted of was the geth driving the quarians from one system? I'd love to see the source! Though one wonders why they needed so many large ships capable of long-distance travel if they only inhabited one system. And you have a source that shows that they were driven off their homeworld soon after the war started, and not, say, years later? Again, I'd love to see the source! And as you say, we don't know the years they were created, rebelled, or when the quarians fled, so how can they be placed on the timeline with "concrete" dates? SpartHawg948 03:21, January 16, 2010 (UTC) :Yet we do do have a definite year - 1900 - which is not supported by the available material. I am currently compiling the quotes from the codex-es and individuals on this matter. (BTW, Kaiden Alenko, not Ashley Williams, stated when the Geth were last seen.) Let's talk about the Geth after I have completed this work. Maybe we can arrive at a consensus.Throwback 03:34, January 16, 2010 (UTC) ::Wait... in one post you say we don't have a definite year "What we don't know is the exact year of the creation, the rebellion, and the first year of the diaspora", then when I respond, "we do do have a definite year"? I'm so confused! Also, I'd still consider the Codex a better source on the geth (remember, it's geth, not Geth) than Lt Alenko. Nothing presented about him shows or implies that he is any more knowledgeable about the geth, or their history, than the average Joe Blow off the street. But can I interpret the fact that no sources for the claims I questioned in my previous post were provided as meaning that there are no sources for the "one quarian system" and "rapid expulsion from their homeworld" claims? SpartHawg948 03:40, January 16, 2010 (UTC) :garbled words Throwback 04:02, January 16, 2010 (UTC) ::1883 is approximately 1900. It's 17 years off, hence the "approximate". The entire Codex uses approximations and rounding to the nearest 10 or 100. Look at the GC:E Edition 2183. How often do you see a year given that doesn't end in 0? 4 times. The four most recent events, and ones humans were on the scene for and would have the exact date for. And yes, 1883 is nearly 300 years prior to the game. Again, only 17 years off. So I'd say the 1900 CE figure is supported by the material. And you have to figure, the 300 figure you are using to get the year 1883 is extrapolated from a quote that says "nearly 300 years ago". Nearly 300 years before 2183 does not necessarily mean 1883. It could be 1875, or 1896, or any year in that ballpark. 1883 seems to be the item not supported by the material. SpartHawg948 04:10, January 16, 2010 (UTC) :garbled words 06:12, January 16, 2010 (UTC) ::Ok, as to that: I was referring specifically to the timeline on page 3, as the timeline on page 23 falls into the category of "recent events, and ones humans were on the scene for and would have the exact date for." Seems like I covered those, no? As for the rest, it essentially seems to come down to quibbling over semantics. The point stands that 1883 is approximately 1900 when talking about broad swathes of history, and 1900 is nearly 300 years before 2183. It's less than 300 years prior, or "slightly short of" 300 years (thanks for providing that definition, it really helped!). And while a conservative approach by your standards would be to refer to the century the event occurred in, this doesn't seem to be BioWare's approach, now would it? And the approach BioWare uses is the only one that matters. While you would never say 1900, BioWare did say 1900. End of story. And again, the 300 years prior is not based off an exact figure, it's based off a "nearly 300 years ago" statement. I'm not misreading anything, but it seems to me you are attempting to apply your own standards to this timeline, which conforms to the standards of those who wrote it (ie the writers at BioWare) and this does mean that there may be inconsistencies sometimes. All we can do is note it in trivia sections and such, and hope they correct or retcon it later, not make things up ourselves in an attempt to "fix" it. SpartHawg948 06:47, January 16, 2010 (UTC) 1900 CE-2100 CE changed to 900 CE-2100 CE Going forward, if I change dates, in support of the changes, I will include the relevant source material. My philosophy is that ‘filmed’ material takes precedence over the written material, and I will dismiss the latter if it contradicts the former. Galactic Codex: Essentials (Edition 2183) Pg. 3 (from the timeline) “900-2100 CE. Galactic community continues to expand, new species are discovered, and a long period of peace and prosperity follows.” Pg. 7 “Ever since the turian seat on the Council was established, the number of Council races has remained at three to the present day. Under the “three great races”, as they are sometimes called, the galaxy experienced a long period of peace, expansion, and discovery. It was not completely without conflict or instability, but for 1,200 years, the Citadel Council considered themselves a mighty empire of strength and prosperity.” Pg. 13 “One of the lasting consequences of the First Contact War with the turians is its interruption of a 1,200-year peace.” Throwback 03:17, January 16, 2010 (UTC) :That may be your philosophy, but BioWare has not stated which takes canonical precedence, written material presented as a historical or encyclopedic account (such as the Codex) or so-called "filmed" material, like in-game dialogue. Since no official position has been set, any assumptions over which takes precedence are speculation. However, I would be inclined to take said written historical/encyclopedic entries as more accurate than statements by individuals who, being human (or krogan, or whatever...) are prone to make generalizations, exaggerations, misstatements, etc. SpartHawg948 03:25, January 16, 2010 (UTC) I stated this as my philosophy. I am being transparent in my methodology. Throwback 03:39, January 16, 2010 (UTC) :That's fine if it's a personal philosophy, but if it's used as justification for making changes to articles, that's when it becomes an issue. SpartHawg948 03:42, January 16, 2010 (UTC) :Any changes which are made to the timeline are based on what is in the available material. I change the timeline entries in an effort at creating greater accuracy. I will not add what is not mentioned. Look above. I changed the timeline from a less accurate date to a more accurate date. This is supported by the material. I did not add anything which wasn't already in the material.Throwback 03:52, January 16, 2010 (UTC) ::Your edit did improve the accuracy of the article, which is why not once have I questioned it. I was merely pointing out that, as BioWare has yet to announce any policy on canonical precedence, any philosophies must be left out of editing. As such, I was a little curious as to why it was necessary to mention your philosophy in the second sentence of your first post, which is why I decided to add a friendly reminder that personal philosophies are irrelevant when dealing with things of this nature. We've had too many incidents in the past where people wanted to apply their own personal "philosophies" regardless of the fact that these may directly contradict in-game fact, so I was just playing it safe by trying to ensure this isn't going to be one of those times. Just trying to ensure things run smoothly around here. SpartHawg948 03:59, January 16, 2010 (UTC) :::Not sure I like the change as is, the year range sticks out like a sore thumb. The timeline was neatly divided into separate eras with ostensible divisions, and now there's overlap, a single "sub-era" which envelops events between two eras. Since the peace starts at 900, I'd end the Early Council Period there, and have the Contemporary period absorb the events up to 900. Maybe change "Contemporary Period" to "Classic Council Period". I'll make the changes so you can what I'm thinking of. It goes without saying that if they're too disagreeable, revert me. -- Commdor (Talk) 05:19, January 16, 2010 (UTC) ::My only problem is that the GC:E Edition 2183 specifies that the period of peace and all that lasts from 900-2100. Overlap in a a timeline isn't necessarily a bad thing. If a specific event happens during a larger time period, I see no problem with overlap. SpartHawg948 05:23, January 16, 2010 (UTC) ::Upon further review though, there were some errors with the previous version that are now fixed (seemed like some of it was pure speculation, and improper race name caps) so unless a compelling case can be made to go back to the version you reverted, I'm not going to object. SpartHawg948 05:26, January 16, 2010 (UTC) Spoiler warnings Please don't put two spoiler tags together. The idea of having a generic spoiler tag is to say "this article generally contains spoilers, read at your own risk." If there's spoilers for something specific, the tag should go above it. But I want to stick with one spoiler tag for the Timeline: there's not enough content to support having dozens of spoiler tags at the bottom of the page, and one alert at the top should be enough. --Tullis 13:53, January 16, 2010 (UTC) 200 BCE - 1 CE sources This section states that this period is when the batarians, hanar, quarians and elcor made first contact with the Citadel. What are the sources for this? Avina discusses the volus in detail around this period, but I don't think she mentions these other species and I can't find anything in Galactic Codex: Essentials Edition 2183. --Tullis 05:17, January 18, 2010 (UTC) 298,000 BCE? This video at 0:46 shows the description of the planet Helyme in ME2. According to said description, this planet is thought to have been the homeworld of the arthenn, a spacefaring species which disappeared 300,000 years ago. Should this info be added in, or is it too soon or insignificant to do so? -- Commdor (Talk) 19:38, January 18, 2010 (UTC) :I personally would prefer to wait and see if we get a bit more info. It'd be rather odd if the first time a spacefaring species shows up on the timeline is when they disappear. Now, if that's all the info that we end up getting about them, then we'll have to run with it, but I'd prefer to see if we get a little more info first. SpartHawg948 20:19, January 18, 2010 (UTC) ::Makes sense, their relevance outside of lore does have yet to be established. -- Commdor (Talk) 20:26, January 18, 2010 (UTC) Why the revision? SpratHawg948, I have re-aligned the timeline to match was presented in the Galactic Codex Essentials: Edition 2183 on page 3. There are two periods of 1,200 years, a 200-year intermediate period, and a second intermediate period of indeterminate length. I have brought the timeline to more closely match this sequence. I have changed the titles so that they are less speculative and more concrete. By saying something is early, there is the implication there is a middle and an end, as in, Early Middle Ages, High Middle Ages, and Late Middle Ages. We don't know how many more 1,200 year periods the Council will enjoy, or if there will be other periods of differing lengths. I have included a summary of each period which can be updated. Aside from the last summary, which is for the ‘present day’, I have included a note which states the years are estimates. This is how the designers intended as they wrote on page 2 of the above pamphlet – The years listed in this timeline are estimates. Finally, I corrected the error that the Rachni Wars ended the first period. In fact, the krogan rebellions ended the first period. I, also, pushed back the earliest date to the Big Bang. There are events mentioned in the game's codex-es and dialog which pre-date the Prothean extinction, and I have pushed the date of the 2nd Intermediate Period to 2182. Again, there may be events that occurred in the years 2180 to 2182.Throwback 22:59, January 18, 2010 (UTC) :1) I thought you were no longer making public edits because we were interfering in your work? :2) I've removed the summaries as there is no point summarising events that are then summarised beneath the summary. :3) I think we may as well just remove the "period" names altogether and just have the dates. Mine weren't any better and this is verging on fanon; we're effectively making up names for periods here. --Tullis 23:08, January 18, 2010 (UTC) I thought I could still contribute. As for the names, the designers name one of these blocks of time as a period. As in 900-1200 CE: Galactic community continues to expand, new species are discovered, and a long '''period' of peace and prosperity follows.'' (Galactic Codex Essentials: Edition 2183, pg. 3) Here's my thoughts on the naming: :1) First Council Period - asari and salarian on council :2) First Intermediate Period - disruption of the previous period by the krogan (I have seen this phrase 'Intermediate Period' used in Ancient Egyptian History. It defines a break from one kingdom from another, or in this case, one council from another.) :3) Second Council Period - asari, turian, salarian on council :4) Second Intermediate Period - disruption of the previous period by the humans I think the approach is conservative, and respects the source material.Throwback 23:22, January 18, 2010 (UTC) :Just to interject here real quick- Tullis seems to have the substantive issues covered, so may I just add- SpartHawg948. Again S-P-A-R-T-H-A-W-G-948. If you want me to sit back, be quiet, and stay out of your way, at least do me the courtesy of spelling my username right. It's 9 letters and 3 numbers. 12 characters. Not hard to get the order right. Also, welcome back! I notice your "no intention of contributing to the public side of the website anymore in the future" period didn't last very long. SpartHawg948 00:36, January 19, 2010 (UTC) ::They don't name the block of time as a period, as in, say, the Late Cretaceous Period. They say that there was a period of prosperity, as in a time of prosperity. ::Uhhh... *sigh* If we're going to keep them we'd need to put, in brackets after that period's name, the notable event involved. Remember that the Timeline is a massive page with a contents at the top that need to be descriptive so people aren't forced to comb through it. Someone looking for, say, events around the Krogan Rebellions is going to look at "First Intermediate Period" and go "whuh?" --Tullis 01:00, January 19, 2010 (UTC) 856 - Source Materials Sources: from the Galactic Codex Essentials: Edition 2183: :1.) 800 CE (1246 GS): Krogan Rebellions end. Turians assume krogan military and policing functions. (pg. 3) :2.) The scale of the war was massive, spanning several planets, and the final rebellion was not suppressed until the galactic year 1300. (pg. 7) from the Codex: Krogan Rebellions :1.) There were decades of unrest afterwards. Rogue warlords and holdout groups of insurgents refused to surrender, or disappeared into the frontier systems to become pirates. Math: from the Galactic Codex Essentials: Edition 2183': A galactic standard year is the equivalent of 1.043 Earth years. :1.) 1300 x 1.043 = 1355.89 :2.) 1355.89 rounded to 1356 :3.) 1356 – 500 = 856 Proof of concept: :1.) 1246 x 1.043 = 1299.57 :2.) 1299.57 rounded to 1300 :3.) 1300 - 500 = 800 With this, I created the entry for this year in the timeline. Throwback 02:29, January 20, 2010 (UTC) :Sorry. That's still stretching the logic like a rubber band. Extrapolation should be reasonable, at least. Besides, what did the turians do? Did they kill the last warlords? Destroy the last krogan base? Finally get the last of the krogan with the genophage? This isn't an entry on the timeline about a notable event, it's basically saying "there were insurgent actions after the Rebellions ended", which can be accomplished by the sentence I added. And there is no clear date for the insurgent actions ending; for all we know they are still going on. --Tullis 02:40, January 20, 2010 (UTC) ::Our interpretations of the source material differs. {shrug) Throwback 05:13, January 20, 2010 (UTC) :::This is not interpretation of the source material. This is highly extended extrapolation of the source material that leads to arbitrary entries. The text you put was not any kind of historical or notable event, which is the entire purpose of the timeline; it was essentially a mention that you had done some homework. While I appreciate your efforts to contribute, if this extrapolation is not at least reasonable or covers an event in more detail (for example, coming up with a more accurate date for an event based on hard evidence) it doesn't belong here and, I'm sorry but we will keep removing it. :::As SpartHawg suggested, you may be better suited to contributing to the Mass Effect Fan Fiction Wiki if you want to add material of this kind. Additionally, we do have editors who maintain their own timelines for their personal use, which I see you have already begun. --Tullis 13:39, January 20, 2010 (UTC) Avina - three dates, or why we need a continuity police force Avina states the following: :1.) The volus were the first non-Council species to be granted an embassy, roughly 2,384 galactic standard years ago. :2.) It embassy - Ed. was added nineteen galactic standard years, despite some rather vocal opposition. :3.) Roughly 1,304 galactic standard years ago, turians were invited to join the Council in recogintion of the role they played during the Krogan Rebellion. On page 2 of the Galactic Codex Essentials: Edition 2183, or GCE:Ed. '83, a galactic standard year is defined as ...the equivalent of a 1.043 Earth years.'. On page 3, the current galactic standard year (for 2183) is given as 2572. And year 1 of the galactic standard year is given as 500 BCE. (There is no year 0). Notes: :1.) 2,572 minus 2,384 equals 188. 188 multiplied by 1.043 equals 196.084. 500 minus 196 equals 304. The Volus were granted an embassy in approximately 300 BCE. :2.) 2,572 minus 19 equals 2553. 2553 multiplied by 1.043 equals 2662.779. This is clearly a mistake as the Earth embassy is opened approximately two years later in 2265 (see Timeline). For that year, the galactic standard year is discovered by adding 2165 to 500 than dividing the result by 1.043 which equals 2555. :3.) 2,572 minus 1,304 equals 1268. 1268 multiplied by 1.043 equals 1322.524. 1323 minus 500 equals 823. This conflicts with what is given in the GCE:Ed. '83 where the turians were granted a council seat in 900 CE, or approximately eighty years after the date given by Avina. Though I think it's possible that the Volus were granted an embassy within 200 years of the Council forming as they were the third species to visit the Citadel, I have elected not to change the date. I am not confident enough to believe that the information provided can be trusted, especially when the two other statements are shown as erroneous. (Do the books offer some insight on this issue?)Throwback 14:20, January 24, 2010 (UTC) Mordin's Year of Birth Is there any Source that confirms the Year 2135 as the Year of Birth for Mordin Solus. Given that the Events of Mass Effect 2 take Place in the Year 2185 would make him 50 Years old, which is very old considering that the average life expectancy of Salarians is around 40 Years. 22:33, February 2, 2010 (UTC) It's from the website, and the average for Salarians is 40 years kinda like how there are humans who are 100, but the average is still like 80. :: I left a note on Mordin's talk page as well (with a link, can't be bothered to find it right now) but the "50 years" thing on Mordin's profile on the ME page is apparently translated into human years, not salarian ones. So that Mordin's actually more around 30 years old. - Ancestralmask Derelict Reaper I think it should be added that 37 million-years ago "An unknown race disables the Derelict Reaper with a mass accelerator round. The round penetrated the Reaper and eventually impacted with the planet Klendagon, creating the Great Rift Valley there." Confirmed by the Illusive Man after completing the Ghost Ship mission. 19:55, February 4, 2010 (UTC) :Done. -- Commdor (Talk) 20:24, February 7, 2010 (UTC) Charon Relay? When is the Charon Relay actually discovered? On the Timeline-page it is listed at both 2149 and 2156 ... which one is it? --Pa-Ec 16:06, February 8, 2010 (UTC) :See Section Discrepencies. I'm pretty sure it's 2149 because the other items in the timeline make more sense matching that particular variation than the 2156. I'm 99% sure the actual answer is sitting in Revelations but I've been too lazy to pick the book up to check. --forgottenlord 23:45, February 9, 2010 (UTC) Changes :1.)65,000,000 BCE - This event is mentioned by Simon Atwell. I say devastated for there is a probability that birds are themselves dinosaurs. :2.)20,000,000 BCE – A civilization thrived on Etamis for 20 million years before they were bombed. They weren't bombed for 20,000 million years. :3.)500 BCE – The codex states that the Specters were founded after the salarians joined the Citadel Council. :4.)300 BCE – Avina states the Volus were granted an embassy roughly 2384 galactic standard years ago. This is not Earth years. :5.)1600 CE – Hamlet (historical records), play is referenced in both games :6.)1685 CE – Arlos from advertisement :7.)1847 CE – Ulysses (historical records), poem is referenced by Ashley Williams :8.)1945 CE – Hiroshima (historical records), destruction of city by a city-buster is referenced in both games :9.) 1969 CE – Apollo 11 (historical records, Codex) :10.)2145 CE – Facts do not support Massani’s birth year – he served the Alliance before becoming a bounty hunter & founder of the Blue Suns :11.)2165 CE – Moved Harkin’s posting to this year. The codex for C-Sec states, ‘’applications must be sponsored by a Citadel Councilor or the ambassador of an associate Council race.’’ Earth didn’t have associate membership until 2165. :12.)2168 CE – Kaiden states that he was 17, not 18, when he killed the turian mercenary :13.)2170 CE – Bankruptcy of Conatix Industries, from Kaiden :14.)2172 CE – Fornax, from Codex ::I don't object to most of those, but we don't need Hamlet or Ulysses. Those are both inconsequential minutiae, and if we were to include everything like that in there, this would be impossibly long. As for Harkin's posting, the fact that there wasn't a human ambassador till 2165 changes nothing. Maybe the ambassador of another race sponsored him? SpartHawg948 00:49, February 17, 2010 (UTC) ::Also, since I like to quibble over semantics, you point out that we should say the dinosaurs were "devastated" since "there is a probability that birds are themselves dinosaurs." but at the same time refer to Hiroshima as being "destroyed" when it was, in fact, not destroyed. Devastated, maybe, but the city itself survived. SpartHawg948 01:03, February 17, 2010 (UTC) :: Some more possibilities: :: 1066 Battle of Hastings :: 1260 Battle of Ain Jalut :: 1415 Battle of Agincourt :: 1944 Battle of Normandy :: 1945 Battle of Iwo Jima Dch2404 18:27, February 19, 2010 (UTC) :::Again though, as with Ulysses and Hamlet, other than the fact that they are (briefly) mentioned in the game, they have absolutely no impact or bearing whatsoever on the plot, characters, backstory, or anything. SpartHawg948 23:24, February 19, 2010 (UTC) ::::Should this article be this specific? I understand days of birth and enlisting to whatever organization for primary characters, but do we really need any date that is given including of funding of colonies on non-relevant planets or when a certain craft had been crashed because it appears is part of some assignment? This kind of information only serves to take the focus from the real dates - other dates could be noted in the relevant articles. --silverstrike 03:29, February 20, 2010 (UTC) :::That is a good point. I for one am inclined to agree that this article should focus more on the main characters and events, and that dates that are (at best) only peripherally associated with either should be left off. Of course, since this would be a major change, we'd need to give a fair amount of time for comment and discussion before doing anything, so people, if you have thoughts about this either way, let's hear'em! SpartHawg948 03:44, February 20, 2010 (UTC) ::::I see only one issue with waiting - only contributors that frequently visit the recent changes page will ever see this discussion. Shouldn't we implement a tag that alert contributors to discussions like this? Something like "A major overhaul is planned, see talk page"? --silverstrike 04:01, February 20, 2010 (UTC) :::Not a terrible idea... not nearly as terrible as I am when it comes to making tags! Hoyo!!! :P Seriously though, I suck at that stuff, so if you or somebody else wants to work on one, it'd be appreciated! SpartHawg948 05:26, February 20, 2010 (UTC) ::::Made a quick draft of the tag. --silverstrike 06:12, February 20, 2010 (UTC) :Works for me! SpartHawg948 09:16, February 20, 2010 (UTC) I'll fire the opening salvo of this newly-christened overhaul discussion. I thought it would be easier to illustrate my ideas for an overhaul by just making the changes I believe need making; see my user page for the draft. Essentially, I tried cutting out the "chaff" (random/really unimportant stuff) and prioritized keeping events by the following criteria: events listed in the Codex (main Codex and planet descriptions. An exception was the dates minor colonies were founded/discovered); events learned by and important to Commander Shepard; events concerning major ME characters. It's still a work in-progress and nothing more than my own single-minded attempt to tinker with the page, but I think it's a step in the right direction. -- Commdor (Talk) 06:46, February 21, 2010 (UTC) Before we go too far, I think it's important to mention that there will be more DLCs (possibly, with fingers crossed), a new game, a new book, and maybe much more as the people at Bioware have said that Mass Effect 3 may be not the end. If we do consider widespread changes, I think it's important that we make changes that are planned for these eventualities in mind.Throwback 08:47, February 21, 2010 (UTC) :I don't really see how any of the changes being discussed wouldn't take into consideration future updates. All that's being discussed is removing some of the dates that really have nothing to do with anything as far as the game is concerned. It's not like, if these changes are implemented, we suddenly won't be able to add new dates. It'll be no different than it was before. If there are relevant dates from DLC, books, and further games, they can get added in. When you get right down to it, this is no more radical a change then the new trivia policy that was implemented a while back. That didn't stop new trivia from being added that related to (then) unreleased media. SpartHawg948 10:17, February 21, 2010 (UTC)